As most of you know, at the same time the Democrats requested a hand recount last Friday, they also filed suit asking the state Supreme Court to order uniform, statewide standards for conducting the recount.
There’s been a lot of whining from the Rossi camp about Democrats trying to “game the system”, accusing them of “going nuclear” by dragging the election into the courts. But there’s been very little discussion about the details of what the Dems are actually asking for.
So in the interest of promoting a more informed debate (or as racist, hate-mongering Stefen calls it, “uninformed debate”), I have obtained copies of the court documents and posted them online. You can download a ZIP file containing all 34 documents, or simply retrieve a PDF of the brief.
But I believe the following excerpt does a pretty good job of explaining what the Dems hope to get from the court:
The following uniform standards are needed to ensure the orderly, accurate, and lawful conduct of the hand recount: (1) standards to ensure that all ballots rejected in previous counts are fully canvassed so that the hand recount produces as complete and accurate a tabulation as possible; (2) standards for evaluating previously-rejected signatures according to the more liberal standards applied in most counties; and (3) standards that allow party representatives to meaningfully witness the hand recount, by observing all actual ballots being counted.
I doubt number three is going to create much controversy, but numbers one and two are sure to raise objections from Republicans, because in a sense, technically, the Dems really are trying to the game the system. That is, they want the recount to be executed according to rules they think will favor Gregoire.
But in a sense, Republicans have already gamed the system by having Sam Reed issue guidelines that they believe will favor Rossi.
None of this should be particularly shocking — with the stakes so high, why on earth would either party cease the sort of legal and political gamesmanship that defines everyday partisan politics? And as far as I’m concerned, better to go to court now and clearly define the rules, than contest the election after the fact.
As to the Dems arguments, well, I’m not an attorney (again, sorry mom), but if they hired me to do PR, I believe I could make a convincing case in the court of public opinion. Apparently, King County used rather strict standards in evaluating signatures on provisional ballots, whereas other counties were more “liberal”… and some didn’t look at the signatures at all. Furthermore, the law doesn’t define a recount as “the same ballots counted in the original count simply retabulated” as Secretary of State Sam Reed does. The law says “all ballots cast.”
But legal issues aside, the question I ask is: “If King rejected ballots that would have counted in other counties, and this is enough to swing the election to Rossi, have we honored the will of the voters to the best of our ability?” I say “no.” But then, I’m openly biased, so take my opinion with a lump of salt.
Anyway, I haven’t finished reading through all the supporting documents — and I certainly haven’t seen any briefs from the other side — so my impression of both the strength and the reasonableness of the Democratic complaint could change. All I ask is, if you’re going to dismiss me as an ignorant, lazy, partisan hack (or a brutal, African dictator) who doesn’t understand the law… the least you can do is first read the brief for yourself before posting your comments.
Thanks for the timely and diligent and substantial contribution, have been waiting to read these all day. Three cheers, Goldy.
“Republicans have already gamed the system by having Sam Reed issue guidelines that they believe will favor Rossi.”
I don’t think so…can you back this up? What “having” of Sam Reed has there been?
It is a complex legal issue. On the other hand, local County Auditors have a great deal of independent authority in their County. They are the responsible election officials.
Goldy–exactly where do you get off saying that other Counties were more “liberal” in counting votes. Where is your evidence?? It’s my understanding that some other County Auditors did not see teams of partisans running around getting affadavits and new voter registration cards well after the election was over like King County did after the Lean Dum ruling. What is more “liberal” than what they did in King County????? Nice try Goldy…back up your conclusion about other Counties being more “liberal” in their standards. It sounds to me all you are doing is repeating the “Democratic Party legal brief”. Just because they allege, doesn’t make it so.
Goldy- Having been reading through the documents you so kindly provided earlier, I am struck by two things- the Democrats are asking for perfection in the count, no matter how long it takes, and the Democrats made no effort to address these issues until too late in the process- both as a matter of law (we’ll see if the Court agrees), but even more so, as a practical matter. They thought they had the election in the bag, and then thought King County would deliver more votes, and found themselves racing desperately in the end game to find those additional votes.
As for “gaming” the system- Sam Reed issued rules in line with the manner in which elections and recounts have been done in the past in this State. The Republicans like the results (so far) under those traditional practices, and want to keep them. The Democrats have noted problems, do NOT like the results (so far), and would like to change the rules NOW. Historically, problems in the law are corrected prospectively- no matter what field of law one is considering.
I also find the stereotyping of the Court by some wishful thinkers to be a gas- we have five women, so they are going to line up with the oppressed and the female candidate? Do any of the commenters happen to know the partisan backgrounds of any of the justices? Not every woman office-holder is a liberal Democrat …
Good points Jim. I can’t believe the intent of the law was to allow someone who was behind after the 1st count and a recount to “mine” for more votes retrospectively. That is clearly what the Dems are doing. I think you are right Jim…the clock has run out on “mining” for the Dems. Even though hand recounts have the opportunity for more serious errors (intentional or not) than machines…it appears we will have to endure this. What do you think the true cost of this is to our State?? I feel for these County Auditors as they have a lot of other responsibilities (like licensing, recording documents etc.)
Comment by Jim King— 12/7/04 @ 5:55 am
First, thanks for saying what was on my mind (this is vote mining and Mary “Marummy” Lane IS right on!) and for being the voice of reason!
That said, I too believe that patriots like Justice Barbara Madsen, whom quite adamantly opposed Gregoire’s scheme to create a gigantic loophole for gov’t to stash documents so we wouldn’t get the RIGHT to read them will do the right thing.
Oh and Goldy, Ron Sims got equated to Mugabe for the Critical Areas Ordnance…
Zip… my point was that both sides want the recount to be conducted according to rules that are favorable to them. Sam Reed issued guidelines that are favorable to Rossi… guidelines that prevent canvassing boards from reconsidering rejected provisional ballots. The Dems would like the opposite.
If we insist on saying Dems are trying to “game the system” then it is only fair to say the R’s are too.
Cynicla-di-da… let’s see, where do I get off saying this? Um….
A) It’s my First Amendment right
B) It’s my blog, I can say anything I damn well please
C) If you notice, I put the word “liberal” in quotation marks, which to any reasonable reader might suggest, gee, I dunno, that perhaps I was quoting the Democratic brief?
Well duh-uh! That was the whole purpose of this posting… so that the public could judge for themselves, unfiltered, what the Dems were asking for, instead of being force-fed an interpretation by the media.
And if you actually read the Democratic brief and supporting documents before jumping down my throat (like I asked you to), you’d see that they provide evidence to support their claims. Disagree with it if you want, but don’t blame me… I’m just reporting news, not making it.
I don’t really care how Stefan or anybody else might rationalize the reference as criticism of land use restrictions, the point is, Stefan compared the state’s leading black politician to a murderous African dictator… and that’s how it is understood.
Tim Eyman has an excuse when he makes racist remarks about Sims… Tim’s not all that bright, and totally lacks subtlety. But Stefan should know better.
State law clearly states that this recount will be of “all ballots cast” not of “all ballots previously counted”. The fact that Sam Reed has decided to ignore and pervert state law to suit his political party is shameless and despicable. It’s also shameless and despicable that the partisan rules he has set up for the recount force Democrats to sue to ensure the letter of the current law is followed. It would be nice if Sam Reed weren’t a partisan hack so the Democrats wouldn’t have to sue to have the current law enforced, but those are the facts. You can whine all day and night about how the Democrats are doing everything in their power to ensure that the law is followed and that “all ballots cast” as defined in state law are examined and, if legitimate, counted, but it doesn’t change the fact that Democrats want a fair recount and Republicans are too immature to be able to handle the fact that their candidate might not have gotten more votes after all.
Have read every detail of the Dem brief- impressive.
King County threw out absenee ballots with good signature on the envelope but the voter had not used the two envelope system. Such two envelope system is not required by statute about mail in ballots. Uptight – nit pickey bureaucry, almost hostile to voters in many respects.
Three counties including Walla Walla did not bother to check any signatures, just counted them all. County after county said yes, we checked signature with our own checking system but signatures ALL matched with no problem. Except there was one, called the voter and he told us he had broken his arm and was having problems writing anything, and ” we couned his vote”- that was not King County. The voter meanies.
Even after the parties went out and got people to correct problems, 24 of those packets were not counted. Why not? No explanation in the brief.
Asotin never checks any signatures, because Alice said they “have no crooks.”
Fact is there are still thousands of contested ballots in King county, many dicarded because of nit picking and trival reasons…..to much zeal from somewhere in that office.
Franklin had computer problems for a week or so, and has yet to file an accurate count. Really need the hand count there.
Interesting reading, thanks again, Goldy.
Yes, too bad, but I agree, Sam Reed has become partisian. He did not follow the law. it seems. and/or exerted less leadership on issuing specific directives to all counties, conforming directives on processing and counting than this historic moment dictates.
That office need to be non partisian.
King County is withhoding information from the Dems, some reuests going back ot Nov 19. Bad, need 100 percent transparency and sushine in these situations. Seems a very strong case, will see what the R’s say. and S. Reed- and Logan.
How can the two counties which used electronic voting machines conduct ANY type of recount, machine or manual? Democrats pushed for a paper trail and Republicans turned it into a partisan issue and blocked the effort. The idea was to have the voter make their choice using the electronic voting machine and then have the machine print out a piece of paper which states for whom the voter voted. The voter would then place the paper in a locked box so that it will be possible for them to conduct a recount if one is issued. Since this did not happen, the machine recount returned a result of no votes being changed in Yakima county. Don’t believe me? Check the results of their count and machine recount. Now that we are going to have a manual recount, they have decided to print out a paper for each vote which was recorded and then count those. The issue here is that the voters never verified the paper printouts, and therefore they cannot be properly verified or counted. All 37 counties in Washington state which do not use electronic voting machines returned a different result after the machine recount, but the two which use electronic voting machines returned the same exact result. There were more ballots cast in those counties for the Republican candidate than there were for the Democratic candidate, and the method in which they will use to “recount” the ballots is laughable because there are no ballots, only a paper printout for each vote the machines thought were recorded, but not one single vote out of all of them was verified by the person who cast that vote. This is a direct result of the Republicans turning the issue of a paper trail into a partisan issue and blocking the effort. The intentional, direct efforts of the Republicans to prevent the existence of voter-verified ballots in those counties amounts to voter fraud, which is a felony, and they should be held accountable for their actions. We would be able to at least get SOME kind of half-way accurate judgment of how many ballots were cast for each candidate if Republicans had not gone way out of their way to prevent this from happening. The first count was not close to accurate, the machine recount was not close to accurate and the manual recount will not be close to accurate as a direct result of the intentional efforts of the Republican party to prevent voter-verified ballots from existing in counties which use electronic voting machines. If the Republicans hadn’t prevented voter-verified ballots from existing in those counties, we would have voter-verified ballots to count there. But we don’t. Make no mistake about it, the Republicans are trying their hardest to steal this election. Whether or not they succeed and whether or not people notice has yet to be seen.
Go to http://www.gregoirethegrinch.com
I can’t believe what this has become!
What’s really annoying about the Grinch thing is that it is so poorly done. (Speaking as somebody who has written a full length parody of the Grinch — “How the Kvetch Stole Chanukah” — only to see fear of lawsuits kill publishers’ interest.)
Speaking of which, if somebody wants to forward the link to the very litigious Dr. Seuss Enterprises, I’m sure they’ll shut the site down in a heartbeat just for illegally using the image of the Grinch.
D C – please explain why King county has the total audacity- obviously non partisian – to not count ballots from mail voters who did not use the two envelope system, perhaps a system of merit but not required by law to vote by mail…..remembering about 60 per cent of ballots are now mailed in, hundreds of thousands….
Or do you really, really care? This is not about cutsie pie crap. Some of those votes were/are for Dino Rossi, some for Ms. Gregoire, BUT none should have been thrown out for that totally silly, uptight, bureaurcy out of control reason. Lets get serious, this is about voting and democracy and all citizen rights in the face of govt. stupidity.
In some ways now that we know how strange the election officals are in Kng County- a federal grand jury is in order and a giant class action civil suit against the County, post recount, by all those thousand of voters who are the disenfranchised, voters, obviously of all political persuasions.
I am angry at Mr. Logan, and his brainless staff.
Well put Bob.
Stupid people piss me off.
“Republicans have already gamed the system by having Sam Reed issue guidelines that they believe will favor Rossi.”
“Sam Reed issued guidelines that are favorable to Rossi… guidelines that prevent canvassing boards from reconsidering rejected provisional ballots. ”
The Gregoire AG determination of 1996 seems to take the wind out of your sails on this one, Goldy. Mr. Reed did nothing intentionally favorable to either party prior to the count. Of course, by sticking to his guns (and sticking to the rules of 1996) the outcome may be favorable to Rossi but to claim that he was a tool of Rossi in making these rules is not right. 1996 Quote:
“Challenge of Ballots Not Allowed. We are advised by the Attorney General that state law makes no provision for the challenge of ballots or voters (as provided in RCW 29.10.125) during the recount. The recount procedure provided for by statute is a mechanical function of re-tallying the ballots cast and accepted as valid by the precinct election officers or the canvassing board during the canvass of the election. The decision of the canvassing board with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of a particular ballot during the canvass is not open to question during the recount.”
How do Mr. Reed’s actions look now in comparison to the Democrats “gaming”?
Zip… you infer something I did not say. I said the SOS instructions have given Rossi an advantage. I did not imply intent, and never said he was tool.
The current rules favor Rossi. Why shouldn’t Democrats want to change the rules to favor Gregoire? What’s so hard to understand? This is politics. This is how the game is played.
“Republicans have already gamed the system by having Sam Reed issue guidelines that they believe will favor Rossi.”
…is what you said. No inference required.
Of course this is politics. The problem with that is, the campaign is over. Attempts to change the rules now are “gaming the system”, and the public wants to get on with things and install a governor fairly. That is why various polls are so negative on Gregoire’s approach to this. People expect and support gaming and lies during the campaign, but not during the recount. You’ve got to admit that her 1996 interpretation of the current situation makes her look pretty bad right now. Why anybody would want her to be governor now, after her hypocrisy in supporting the lawsuit, is totally beyond me. Like I said, games and lies are fine during the campaign, but the campaign is over.
EXCUSE me Goldy? the rules have favored sweet Chrissy all the way from King County Kangaroo court. And she STILL lost. Dont try to pass this off as things being in Rossi’s court, the Dems are trying every dirty trick in the books to stuff Gegoire up our asseven though 66% thinks Rossi won.
No Chuck, I said:
You want to play the out-of-context-quote-game, go play over on Sound Politics.
And fuck the polls. The only poll that counts is the one that was taken on Nov. 2… not an Elway Poll, and certainly not those bogus online polls. Take a look at the online poll on my website for an idea of how ridiculous they are.
In the end, all your fingerpointing at evil Democrats trying to steal elections ignores a very important point. There were hundreds voters in King County whose votes didn’t count because election workers here were incredibly more anal than election workers in other counties. Now that may very well be the rules… and that may be how the Supremes decide… and Rossi may win because of it… but don’t get smug with me about how the Dems are trying to subvert the will of the people, because if more legally registered voters cast ballots for Gregoire than for Rossi, but Rossi “wins”, then I say the rules were fucked.
Is that so hard to even empathize with a touch?
Hopefully no matter who is sworn in the actual number of votes cast by “legally registered voters” will be known during 2005 research/recaps. How confident are you that there are no illegally registered voters in this state? Gee, I wonder who all the non-citizens and college kids who voted twice voted for.
And omitting “But in a sense” doesn’t alter what you said earlier about Sam Reed gaming the system, which is absolutely false. In a sense, you were flat out wrong.
zip- Thought you said you did not like stupid stuff. Why would you say something so strange – wonder who are all the illegally registered, and who college kids voted for- purely stupid stuff, partisan, stereotypes, and semi witless.
First- all exit poling shows an interesting reality check about college kids….. Reagan era moms and dads raised their fair share of- what, Republicans. Duh….
With the efforts to register everywhere, on the streeet, in the QFC, the Ferry ride, etc.–, simple, accesible, who are the illegals? And why would anyone bother? The unwashed hordes of
people trying to vote, so determined and they keep trying, now democrat, then Lib, maybe Green…..never R’s….. Geez, wish we had that much enthusiasm for balloting from Bellevue and Kirkland and Wallingford and Broadmoor.
Sam Reed failed in his job, totally. After the first vote when we all knew there was going to be a recount, by automatic kick in from election laws, Reed did not size up the situation with any wisdom. Stong, precise, detailed information on how to proceed with total uniformity in all cased, in all matters, for all counties, THAT was the call of the day- stictly enforced by the august Sec. of State. Imposed, enforced, uniform standards, on all counties- and he has that power.
Sam wimped out- too bad. There was a lot at stake for voters, for him, and the body politic, Sam has a lot of experience in elections, decades, all the resouces and experts in the world at his call, he wimped out in his moment of fame. Second class stuff in my opinion. Not leadership.
I’ve read the briefs, and I think the Republicans have the better of this argument.
Reed and Rossi both hammer home the point that a recount is, under Washington law, a retabulation and not a “re-canvass” that would include re-evaluating ballots that had previously been rejected. (Washington is thus different from other states that reexamine ballot validity in their recounts.) Kudos to Jim King for knowing his stuff — he told us so last week. The Dems point to the statute that says recount “all votes cast,” but the Rossi brief cites State vs. Clausen (Washington Supreme Court) which states EXPLICITLY that rejected ballots aren’t included in “total votes cast.” That was a 1913 decision, but I’ll assume they wouldn’t cite it if it wasn’t still good law. And Rossi points out statutes describing the recount procedure itself, showing it only includes previously tabulated ballots. So I can’t see the Supreme Court requiring a recanvass as an elemental part of the hand recount.
The Democrats have a stronger case on the issue of a uniform statewide standard for rejecting ballots, but by no means a slam dunk. There was a uniform standard — that signatures “match.” At least, there was a uniform rule on paper. The issue is whether there was a uniform standard in practice. Reed correctly points out that counties could employ “different systems for signature verification,” as long as the rule was followed; but the Democrats allege that some counties didn’t enforce the signature verification rule at all (unlike King County, which enforced it aggressively), which would make the landscape decidedly not uniform. However, they need to cite some specific instances.
But even if there’s solid evidence that happened, the Court may be reluctant to intervene; it’s properly a challenge to the conduct of the election, not the recounts. So this might not be the right procedural posture, or the right timing. And the remedy could be messy, expensive and slow — my guess is that affected counties would have to recanvass all their votes, including absentees (which might be a problem… weren’t the envelopes discarded?). Relief here is possible, but I bet the court will stay out of it.
The Dems’ strongest argument is that the Secretary of State did nothing to order a recanvass or other corrective action when faced with obvious inaccuracies like vote totals allegedly not matching the sum of ballots counted + ballots rejected. That’s his obligation, so if the facts bear it out, the court could mandate that Reed require a full recanvass in such counties.
Wait and see what happens (don’t forget to bring the popcorn)…
Please don’t respond to the above comment here (because no one will see it) — I’ve re-posted it in the new thread on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case.
Excellent http://www.gregoirethegrinch.com webpage. They out to put that on a billboard. Haha. Thanks.
State law clearly states, “The decision of the canvassing board with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of a particular ballot during the canvass is not open to question during the recount.” No decisions were made by the canvassing board with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of any provisional ballots during the canvass in many counties in Washington state. This was admitted candidly by elections officials in some counties in Washington state (Source: NWCN/King 5). Since no decisions were made by them regarding the validity of any provisional ballots in those counties, the examination and attempts to verify the validity of the ballots by both parties should be allowed to take place for the first time in the count/recount process. The decisions which were already made by the canvassing board cannot be challenged during the manual recount. However, if they have not made a decision, it would not be a violation of state law for them to make decisions regarding the validity of votes during the manual recount. It would also not be a violation of state law to allow both major political parties to verify the validity of votes which were not examined or counted during the initial count or the machine recount. This part of state law which zip has pointed out for us does not apply in this case, because this part of state law only deals with the challenges to previously made decisions by canvassing boards as to the validity of votes. The Democrats’ lawsuit says that they want the recount to be of “all ballots cast” as defined by state law. Sam Reed has set the guidelines for the manual recount to be of “all ballots previously counted”, which is directly antithetical to state law, which clearly states that the recount is to be of “all ballots cast”. The part of state law which the neo-cons like to point to is one which does not even apply in this case because it only applies to the challenges of decisions previously made by the canvassing boards. It does not address the issue of verifying the validity of ballots which were not verified or counted during the initial count or the machine recount, nor does it address the issue of verifying and counting legitimate votes which had not previously had decisions made by canvassing boards regarding their validity. State law does, however, cover this issue. It says to recount “all ballots cast”. On Monday the state Supreme Court will hear the Democrats’ arguments that current state law should be followed instead of the partisan rules set up by Sam Reed which state that the manual recount should be of “all ballots previously cast”. Hopefully the state Supreme Court will decide to made the legally correct decision to uphold current state law instead of deciding to uphold the partisan rules set up by Sam Reed, partisan hack. The position of Secretary of State severely needs to be changed to a non-partisan position. No one who is officially affiliated with any political party should be allowed to set rules regarding the conduction of elections or recounts.
State law does not say that. In fact, it doesn’t explicitly define a recount. That quote is taken from the King County Canvassing Board guidelines, not the RCW, and it is their interpretation of state law.
Just wanted to clear that up, because these things get repeated in the media and elsewhere and then become solidified as “fact.”
My mistake. I shouldn’t quote neo-cons. This means that the validity of every ballot cast in the governor’s race must be verified and all valid ballots must be counted in this manual recount. State law states that “all ballots cast” should be recounted. The fact that the canvassing boards in different counties have different standards for recounting votes shows that uniform standards for all counties must be put into place. Especially when elections officials in numerous counties in Washington state have candidly admitted that none of the provisional ballots in their counties were verified or counted. Most of these counties went to Rossi, but provisional ballots traditionally favor the Democratic candidate. It is quite probable that the verification and counting of those provisional ballots would result in Gregoire winning the manual recount, and if she got more legitimate votes than Rossi, she should be inaugurated. After the validation and counting of each vote occurs, we will have the best idea we can get as to who got more votes. Whomever wins a recount conducted in this manner should be inaugurated. However, if the manual recount is conducted simply to “recount all ballots previously counted”, the results of the manual recount will be illegitimate because it will not be a count of “all ballots cast”. The law is actually quite specific in regard to recounts. All ballots cast means all ballots cast, not all ballots previously counted. I really wish the neo-cons would stop arguing that state law should be ignored. It is clear that the only reason they want the current state law to be ignored is because that is the only way their candidate will have a chance of winning the manual recount. If all ballots in question are verified and the ones which are valid are counted, it will undoubtedly garner a gain of enough votes to show that Gregoire did indeed receive more legitimate votes than Rossi did. And if this is shown, Gregoire should be inaugurated.
Brent – Bravo. ADDED, go to the Sec of State site, pull certificate for recount issued by same……guess what – calls for recount of “all votes cast.”
If all ballots cast had been verified and if the legitimate votes had been counted during the initial count, as state law clearly states should have been done, the provisional ballots which were neither verified nor counted would not need to be verified and counted now. If the elections officials in all counties in Washington state had properly done their job in accordance with state law, this would not be an issue. All legitimate ballots should be counted, and since we know that all the provisional ballots in numerous counties in Washington state were neither verified nor counted, they need to be verified and if legitimate, counted. Why should those legitimate votes not count? Because the elections workers in backwards hick counties did not bother to properly do their job by informing voters as to how to check on the status of their provisional ballot? Because the elections officials in numerous counties have candidly admitted that they did not bother to verify the validity of any provisional ballots? State law says to count “all ballots cast” and since it was admitted by elections officials that this did not happen during the initial count or the machine recount, the law regarding the counting of “all ballots cast” needs to be followed now. There are valid votes amongst the provisional ballots. Give me one good reason why they should not count. Give me one good reason why we should not ensure that “all ballots cast” have been examined and, if legitimate, counted.
Goldy-
Forward the http://www.gregoirethegrinch.com to Dr. Suess’ people and they’ll shut it down? Why, it’s mostly true in its content. It’s not their fault the Dems can’t handle the truth as well as have a sense of humor.
Mark, it’s a blatant violation of intellectual property law: an unauthorized reproduction of a trademarked character. Now if they remove the Grinch illustration, it may pass muster, though the over litigious lawyers at Dr. Seuss Enterprises may give them a tough time over using the word “Grinch.”
As to Dems not having a sense of humor… please… I’m a student of humor, so explain to me what makes the site funny? Anybody who knows me well will vouch that I am an extremely tough critic of comedy — watching a typical sitcom with me is as tough on you as it is on me, as I sit there predicting the ever-so-predictable punchlines as the jokes are set up. Gregoire the Grinch is a lazy piece of half-satire that never got beyond the title and a page layout program. There late, great Dr. Seuss deserves better than that.
You want to see effort put into a Grinch parody? Go read “How the Kvetch Stole Chanukah.”
Goldy-
What’s funny? It makes fun of lil Crissy and all this mess, that’s what. As far as the legality of the Grinch, don’t blame me, I didn’t put it there. It’s funny just the same, at least to some of us. Thanks.
Yes I like Dr. Suess as well. ‘The grinch and the snitch have tears in their eyes, and Yertle the Turtle has said fond good-byes. To a man with a vision forever turned loose, to a man the world treasured-dear Dr. Seuss.’
Of course, humor is rather subjective. But my point is, “making fun” and “funny” are two different things.
All a matter of personal opinion.